On Wednesday 02 June 2010 21:22:07 Mike McCarty wrote: > Paul Rogers wrote: > >>> have one system that trails, i.e. has exactly the package versions > >>> specified in the HSR, and verifies that each version of LFS does in > >>> fact install flawlessly with those prerequisites. > >> > >> Volunteers welcomed. > > > > I reported it doesn't work with 6.1, that's as close as I had. And the > > response I got was, paraphrasing, "use 6.3, it's known to work". There > > seemed to be a complete lack of recognition of it being a problem with > > the book. Frankly, the resistance I experienced getting general > > recognition the problem should be taken seriously hasn't engendered much > > desire to volunteer. I don't care for this sort of welcome. > > I haven't followed this thread very closely, so perhaps that explains > my confusion. What, precisely, is the "problem" with the book? Do you > want the authors to add a check for the running kernel version? That > would "fix" the book.
My understanding is that Paul came upon an error while building 6.6 from 6.1. When he reported this error here the overall reply was that he should try a more recent build to start with. Paul objects because the 6.6 book stated 6.1 would suffice. IMO The whole discussion on wether Paul did or did not follow the book to the letter does not matter one bit ... until someone proofs otherwise (i.e. is able to build 6.6 from 6.1) Pauls claim that the book is wrong is correct. I think Paul does have a point. I'm not suggesting the book should be tested against every possible running kernel version but if the general consensus is that a 6.3 system is required than the book should state 6.3 until proven otherwise. Just my 2c. Danny. -- In theorie is er geen verschil tussen theorie en praktijk. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
